My friend George Ann Hughes of The Byte Show forwarded me this disturbing article:

Shining light on Baptist clergy sex abuse

We have all, of course, heard by now of the rampant sexual abuse of children within the Roman Catholic Church, and of the attempts by some of its clergy to exercise influence to cover it up, with allegations of this attempted cover-up going all the way up to the Vatican itself. Indeed, the late Fr. Malachi Martin wrote of this practice in conjunction with ritual abuse and a hidden network of co-opted clergy practicing it in his last book, the novel Windswept House. For those able to read between the lines of Fr. Martin's novel, it, like his other great fictionalized account of ecclesiastical politics, Vatican, pulls the veil back on a church riddled with factions, networks, infiltrators, and pederasts.

Now it seems there are rumors of similar widespread scandals within the various denominations of the Baptist religion. What one wonders is, where is the outrage of the media here? The Catholic Church, rightly, has been the focus of mainstream media attention and outrage for the scandals that have rocked it for the past two decades, but where's the outraged mainstream national media coverage of similar scandals in other churches? To my knowledge, there has been very little. Of course, every now and then, we are treated to stories of famous evangelical preachers being given the "outrage" treatment, but we are not led to believe that it is a widespread problem, but the occasional moral"hiccup".

But this website belies the idea that such abuse is "occasional", but rather, is more widespread than might be suspected. And that raises a significant question: Just why is such abuse so widespread within not just the Catholic Church, but by implication, within so many churches? Why, every few years or so, are we told about stories of child-sex rings: the Franklin Scandal, the recent Penn State allegations, and on and on?

My suspicion - and it is only a suspicion - is that we're looking at a network, an organized deeply hidden phenomenon, that appears to surface every now and then as an "isolated" incident, when the truth may be otherwise. Earlier this week I blogged about Nephilim Nonsense, and it occurred to me that, what better way to cast suspicion over the possible existence of a real network, than to "poison the well" with ridiculous stories of Satanic ritual abuse and "Nephilimic mothers"? The movie Taken with Liam Neeson plays to a similar theme of networks of child and teenaged abduction and forced prostitution, and more recently, the actor Corey Feldman has courageously stepped forward to talk about similar networks within the Hollywood community. It's a theme that, in spite of attempts to render it ridiculous, won't go away. The question is: does such a network exist? And more importantly, where's the outrage?

Posted in

Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. James on February 26, 2012 at 6:09 pm

    So what is up? I think they many mega churches call themselves the corporate church these days! Well if corporations rule this country I guess to compete the church feels they need to do the same thing. We’ll just make the rules and interpretations as we go in the name of peace and prosperity. And every body has their own interpretation of scripture if there is a disagreement they simply become another entity or branch of some denomination. I lost count of all the new denominations springing up calling themselves christians actually I just gave up period.

    For all those waiting on Jesus to return which church or denomination is he going to recognize as his church? How about none of them? 2000 years later and nobody wants to hear about sacrifice to receive the Holy Spirit or fasting and prayer privately or in secret to hear from God as a method to grow yourself spiritually! But we love to point fingers and argue about our interpretations of scripture various types of sin.

    Here is one for you let say you can’t even claim to be a prophet unless you have received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and you can demonstrate it! And 2 the only thing you are allowed to share from that bible or speak is that which you have heard through fasting and prayer and hearing from God directly!

    How many churches would just these two simple rules close down accross the country! How about every single one and there would be no more christian radio or television either!

    So when I say there is a book missing between the 4 gospels and the book of acts. The reason it is not there is because “they kept it a secret” the 12 and the 120 in the upper room! When in fact they were all hearing from God and fasting and praying and growing in their explosive spiritual power. That we were all meant to have to one degree or another.

    How many books besides the bible do we have governing peoples behavior?” So is there no crime just because someone created another law on the books?

    You are right deplorable behavior is deplorable but as a prophet can I say one sin is worse than another? If until you receive the Holy Spirit God cannot help you with his extra dose of conscience. Lead us not into temptation just doesn’t have the teeth it does until you have the Holy Spirit within you! I work a normal job cussing swearing people lude and rude coments all around me big deal! I don’t need some robe or designer suit to hide behind. In fact i don’t even own a suit.

    Humpty Dumpty the prophet!

    Really I don’t feel hoidy toidy or high brow or anything! Just get me in a place where they are Worshipping God
    it is not my job to convince anybody to come to Jesus the spirit or presence of the lord can do a much better job than any of our human words. I am just there as a conduit to God

  2. Greg Parent on February 26, 2012 at 4:07 am

    Child sexual abuse is an epidemic–and it’s getting worse. It’s the” Satanism” that is part and parcel of the modernist, nihilistic, narcissistic culture we have embraced. And it’s far more likely to occur today at the school than at the church.

    BTW–according to the research of Philip Jenkins–an ex Catholic and hardly an apologist for the Church–2-3 percent of the Protestant clergy have abused minors, while the figure for Catholic priests is less than two percent. According to an article in the Christian Science Monitor–again not a particular friend of the Catholic Church “despite headlines on the priest pedophile problem in The Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with sexual abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the abusers are not clergy or staff, but church volunteers.” According to Arthur Gross Shaefer, a professor of Law and Ethics, sexual abuse among rabbis in organized Judaism is roughly equivalent to that found in the Protestant clergy. According to an AMA study, in the city of New York alone, at least one child is abused every day by a school employee! But then anyone paying attention has noticed that not a week goes by without two or three school-related sex abuse cases surfacing.

  3. MattB on February 24, 2012 at 1:13 am

    To LegioXIV, Dr. Farrell, Daniel Jones and spiritsplice.

    Thank you all for such an illuminating discussion. I wish we could be in the same room together.

    Now, once again I don’t need to sit down and type a rebuttal, instead I will cook my wife dinner, begin marking my Year 12 Studies of Religion student’s essays on ‘The development of Christian Sexual ethics as it pertains to homosexuality from A.D 50 to Thomas Aquinas’ and then read and reflect on this fabulous thread.

    Thank you once again.

    Post Script: I love the fact that an Atheist and a Christian can have peaceful, meaningful dialogue. legioXiV; “Aussie Aussie Aussie oi oi oi”

    • legioXIV on February 24, 2012 at 1:16 am

      haha good on ya mate.

    • legioXIV on February 24, 2012 at 1:27 am

      That’s an interesting subject for year 12 MattB. I wasn’t even allowed to do history in year 12 because I was the only one at school who wished to so. That sucks.

      • MattB on February 24, 2012 at 2:58 pm

        That’s a shame mate, you would have smashed it!

        The Year 12 Course allows for a lot of scope. The students have to cover the following:

        1. Religion in Australia post 1945.
        We examine the damage done to Native Australian spirituality due to the White Australia Policy (destruction of kinship groups, sacred sites, language and transmission of ceremony etc). Fascinating stuff! I am investigating a certain tribe who’s description of the Dreaming mirrors the idea of the Aether, more on that as I do the work.

        2. Three Depth studies fromthe 5 ‘major’ religions- Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism and Islam.

        Here we have to examine one ethic (Sexual, Bioethical, Environmental), one ceremony or tradition and one significant person or school of thought (I have the early Greek fathers in there-Joseph would be proud :))

        3. Religion and Peace. Here we examine how peace as a concept is enacted and thought about within the 3 chosen religions.

        4. Religion and Non Religion. Here we examine the interaction between faith and non faith systems.

        I wanted to do Hinduism so we could look at the Mahabharata and Baghavad Gita, they vetoed me on that one.

        • legioXIV on February 24, 2012 at 4:05 pm

          “That’s a shame mate, you would have smashed it!” Thanks mate.
          History was all I wanted to do when growing up. From ancient Greece to the 20th century. I was robbed I tells ya.

  4. Enlil's a Dog on February 23, 2012 at 6:00 am

    A bit off topic I know and I apologize in advance, but if anyone knows Dr Farrell’s take on the “rapture” idealism I would appreciate some information??

    I am having quite a heated debate with someone regarding this topic..I am saying there is no basis for it in traditional and early Christian Doctrine which I was led to believe when I was younger – the other person says there is references to it in the Bible everywhere?????
    This person also does not belong to any of the traditional Christian Churches, ie Catholicism, Anglicanism or Eastern Orthodox…
    Any assistance from either yoursef, Dr Farrell, or anyone else in here would be appreciated..


    • MattB on February 23, 2012 at 11:55 pm

      I was brought up with this doctrine, and have since dumped it. The sources for the doctrine are simply incredible.

      Here is a simple overview : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture

      The real issue his the people who created the doctrine, dig there and you will find some scary stuff!

      • Enlil's a Dog on February 24, 2012 at 2:58 am

        Thanks, Matt..

        That was one of the first references I looked at when this debate began..I’ve pointed such references to this person as well as the nasty foundations of its origins and left it at that..If he wants to believe that nonsense then let him lol..

        Thanks, again..

  5. Jedi on February 23, 2012 at 5:15 am

    Sexual abuse is used in the conditioning phase of mind programming for a individual or simply humiliating a group that could be a threat, ie the baptists, the catholics the you name it group too diffuse there power, Divide and conquer, the 5th column, the trojan horse….invariably cohesion in a group is also effective. Pearl harbor comes to mind.

    We are dealing with a cartel that are using advanced psychological conditioning on individuals, groups, society.

    The Cuban missile crisis combined with JFK assassination was a planned pre staged event that successfully paralyzed a nation.

    It is a game run effectively as any computer program with zero margin of error.

  6. Bear claw Chris Lapp on February 22, 2012 at 10:55 pm

    The best website covering ritual sex abuse and mind control (and “Illuminati” symbolism) is the site “Vigilant Citizen.” I recommend spending many hours reading this site.


  7. LSM on February 22, 2012 at 3:51 pm

    this embedded article is just another minute scratch at the tip of the iceberg-

    “My suspicion… is that we’re looking at a network, an organized deeply hidden phenomenon, that appears to surface every now and then as an “isolated” incident, when the truth may be otherwise”-

    the truth is already out there- it’s just a question if anyone has the guts to face it-

    “ridiculous stories of Satanic ritual abuse”- history has always without exception repeated itself- so why should we stupidly believe that “ancient” human sacrifice doesn’t continue to this day? -granted, horrible concept- but I think we must face reality-

    “networks within the Hollywood community”- start with vigilantcitizen.com and this person’s take on Whitney Houston’s “convenient” death (Amy Winehouse’s saga was no different- not to mention the spate of unexplained deaths in the whole 60’s/70’s Laurel Canyon crowd anylized and available here: davesweb.cnchost.com- but we won’t go there today)-

    “The question is: does such a network exist? And more importantly, where’s the outrage?”-

    there is no public outrage because “sheeple” flatly refuse to believe that such a network could possibly exist-

    “The indidual becomes incapacitated when confronted with a concept so monstrous that he believes it could not exist”- J. Edgar Hoover

    • LSM on February 22, 2012 at 4:29 pm

      another scratch at the tip of the iceberg: check out Rev. Kevin Annett’s websites for proof of decades-long ritual child abuse (genocide) in Western Canada at:


      enough said for now on this topic

  8. Daniel Jones on February 22, 2012 at 10:17 am


    I’m going to wax socratic here and hold you to an academic standard:

    Could you please outline, for us all to see, what you think Constantine added?

    I would also ask that you please keep in mind your present company: myself, Dr. JPF (the blog owner), and Dr. DeHart, who have spent a good chunk of our lives dealing with such texts and history.


    • MattB on February 22, 2012 at 3:24 pm

      Yes i would be interested to see this as well. I would like to know why spirit splice is happy to accept the suppositions and assumptions of a website (jesusdidnotexist.com), yet is happy not to apply the same standard to his reading of Joseph’s books.

      Joseph, being an excellent scholar would appreciate robust discussion of his work. I think this shows a high degree of respect, rather than just hoping on to a perceived ‘anti-religious’ bandwagon. I haven’t read anywhere in Joseph’s work where he condemns people’s faith, only the negative outcome of those who do not study and reflect on their faith.

      People who use religion to kill are indeed a disgrace, people who seek to kill people’s faith are almost as bad.

      • Daniel Jones on February 22, 2012 at 5:42 pm

        I would largely agree.

        With regard to spiritsplice’s view-point, I have no problem of him throwing it out there for thought that an historical Jesus never existed. That certainly very well could be. What I’m concerned about is the pious dogmatism in his statements (along with his patent rudeness to me), that his particular ‘specialist’ has settled the question and we but need to ascent to this ‘doctrine.’ Most of what is there, experts are fairly familiar with (liberal and conservative), and doesn’t move the ball down the proverbial court enough to tip the scales and doesn’t add much new information beyond one author’s possible synthesis (what he does provide has some good reasoning to it, I’ll admit).

        My view, which I someday hope to collaborate and/or support with two other men, is rather complex and I certainly could not attempt to do so in a comment post, nor would I even do so until something was available to be really considered (i.e. inprint). My intention was solely to diffuse the ‘brow beating’ mentality that I saw happening.

      • MattB on February 22, 2012 at 11:45 pm


        Go to the head of the class my friend. I’m glad you beat me to it as I was going to sit down tonight and go through the rebuttals, now I don’t really need to-thanks heaps!!

        If spirit splice wants to believe that Christ didn’t exist, well that is his choice. I draw the line when that position becomes aggressive (what is the difference between that and ‘bible bashing’?), or when the position flies in the face of the evidence.

        I am not a fan of the ‘here is a website that proves it’ methodology (yes we have all done it from time to time). I also take exception to generalisations that debase the charity, self sacrificing love that millions and millions of Christians display every day. They should not be lumped in with those ‘wolves’ who use the Gospel to control, manipulate and destroy.

        I find it fascinating that a ‘Jewish sect’ could survive extreme persecution for over 300 years if it were built on a complete fabrication. True, this is a dangerous statement as a lie can be powerful, but 2000 years of tradition, millions of contributors, scholars and testers of the religion? I think Occam’s Razor can be put back in it’s sheath, and that is without looking directly at the evidence!

        The real issue here, as Joseph and Scott DeHart have raised, is whether or not the religion has been taken captive by something very evil, and very early. This does challenge by theological position and I am glad for it.

        What if something terrible has corrupted ‘the message’?

        The Christ that I ‘know’ could never approve of the deeds we find in Church history-something has gone very wrong and I am at present struggling with this.

        • Nidster - on February 23, 2012 at 9:17 am

          I largely agree with the above posts by Daniel Jones and MattB. Well stated, insightful and reasonable.

        • spiritsplice on February 23, 2012 at 12:46 pm

          You don’t “know” any Christ. This is partially my point. You accepted a belief from another based on zero fact. You have faith in a story that is fully absurd. I don’t post a link as proof of anything, only as a shorthand to avoid typing a page of explanation. The truth is that there is no “proof” for much of anything. To quote Robert Anton Wilson, “Is, is, is… I don’t know what anything is. I only know how it seems to be at the moment.”

          and “Only a madman is absolutely sure.”

          Religion is slavery (aside from the physics and that is only meaningful if you know it is there and understand it rather than believe it, it being the metaphor. I believe it was Joseph Campbell who said that, “Myth is not to be believed, but understood.”). A system that purports to force your mind into a box and claim you need to take their word for it under threat of punishment is slavery. That some of the duped engage is good ynder the flag of said slavery is no defense of it.

          At best we can say Jesus may have been a teacher who told people to love one another, not a supernatural man/god, not sired by the holy spirit, not a messiah, etc. Islam has nearly as long a tradition, so does Judaism, Hinduism, and so on. Is Alah real because Islam stuck sround for so long and had thousands of contributory writers? Non sequitor.

          Don’t defend your faith, it discredits you to do so. Remember Mark Twain’s words about faith. The bible twists it, but basically agrees. Faith has no place in research and is nothing more than a socially acceptable form of bias.

          Good people will do good things of their own volition, no fairytale needed. If one only did it to gain favor witj god, it isn’t worth much (and the bible condemns this type of thought btw).

          No religion was not taken captive, as Joseph points out, the system is founded on inherent contradiction where Inquisions are the natural, eventual and (in the long run) only possible result.

          I have to apologize if I seem callus regarding your struggle with Christianity’s inherent moral contradictions. I was a Christian years ago and vociferously defended the faith. When I became honest with myself concerning my doubts amd challenged my previous assumptions (such as, why should I take the bible seriously at all) the whole edifice fell apart. It was difficult to accept and deal with as I had no replacement belief system. However, my motto has always been “truth no matter what”. So I let it be and kept searching. Eventually I saw there are no answers to much of anything. Almost nothing is knowable. Coming to terms with this is what maturity really is and a place most people ever fear to go.

          • MattB on February 24, 2012 at 1:04 am

            “Good people will do good things of their own volition, no fairytale needed.”

            Hence the references to Philosophia perennis et universalis that one will find in Joseph’s work. Why can’t this be of Divine origin? I understand the rather complex ‘can of worms’ can be opened-that is exciting!

            Yahwehism may be the ‘captivity’ that I am referring to; I haven’t read Joseph’s book on that subject yet so i am still wrestling with the notion.

            “Don’t defend your faith, it discredits you to do so.”
            NO, I think it is a credit to any human being who demonstrates peaceful conviction.

            “You don’t “know” any Christ.”

            And how do you KNOW this? Evidence to PROVE this would be helpful 🙂
            I think you can do better than this spirit splice, this is kindergarten stuff.

            “Is Alah real because Islam stuck sround for so long and had thousands of contributory writers? Non sequitor.”

            To the Muslim Allah is real, welcome to relativism. I will concede that the ‘Yahwehist’ religions have foundational problems, however I do not submit to the idea that ‘control’ breeds longevity. As Joseph has stated on several occasions, human being have an inherent nature that rises against oppression.

            Therefore we have a situation where the oppressive elements are being examined, and that special ‘truth’ that may or may not be God, I think, will remain-hence the desire that humanity has to quest for God.

            That to my mind is wonderous.

        • legioXIV on February 23, 2012 at 2:35 pm

          Thanks for the vote of confidence MattB,
          First let me say that I am not a biblical scholar I am more interested in the military and political history of the Roman Republic, Principate and Later Empire. Secondly I am an atheist ( and not a rabid one at that) so I can say that I have no bias either way on whether Jesus existed or not. Personally I think that the case can be made that he did far more confidently than the case for he didn’t.
          That said I do find the question of whether someone existed or not extremely interesting (I don’t know why, just one of my eccentricities I suppose). For example Jesus and the “once and future King”, Arthur. Fascinating stuff.

          • Patrick on February 23, 2012 at 5:10 pm

            Antoly Fomenko Author,

            History: Fiction or Science?
            Chronology 1

            Opening pages, literally…

            Jesus Christ was born in 1152 AD and crucified in 1185 AD.
            The Old Testament refers to medieval events.
            Apocalypse was written after 1486.

            1487 citations, 586 pages.


          • legioXIV on February 23, 2012 at 5:35 pm

            G’day Patrick,
            Sorry mate but I have heard this fallacy before and it is just plain rubbish.
            Off the top of my head, the earliest known manuscript extant by Tacitus mentioning Christ is dated to around 1100AD while the earliest Suetonius is around 950AD. The earliest new testaments have been dated to around the 3rd and 4th centuries AD.
            Pontius Pilate was Praefectus of Judea from 26 to 36 AD.
            Tiberius Caesar was Princeps from 14 to 37AD.
            The last Roman Emperor of the West was Romulus Augustulus, deposed in 476AD.
            As for the earliest known manuscripts of the Christian writers, Dr Farrell would know more about that than me but I am willing to bet that they date from well before 1152AD.

          • Joseph P. Farrell on February 23, 2012 at 6:22 pm

            Yes it is rubbish, from so MANY points of view it isn’t even funny. As for manuscripts, it’s been decades since I’ve had to do any New Testament textual criticism, but as I recall, one of the earliest papyri is P73 (or is that 74? My memory escapes me) is thought to be from the 2nd century(again if I recall correctly), and is moreover in the Byzantine text type (that’s the orthodox text type), so the “ideas” of Fomenko, on that one point alone, are just plain rubbish, as legio aptly put it. But, allow my foggy memory some latitude here folks…as I say I haven’t looked at this stuff in decades. But we might as well mention Codex Siniaticus or Codex Vaticanus, which are of course way before any of Fomenko’s dates, and there are the Gnostic texts, again second century, the Nag Hammadi library…on and on we could go.

            Bravo again legio for calling it!

          • Patrick on February 23, 2012 at 6:32 pm

            HAHHAHAHAHAHA…tight grips around here 🙂

            Dated how? Carbon dating? Surely we are all aware of the ChChChChanges those elements have been going through right?

            I enjoy the idea that you’re all both right and yet so wrong because no one has a handle on the multi dimensional nature of the truth while stuck in this linear hologram.

          • legioXIV on February 23, 2012 at 6:47 pm

            Ok Patrick,
            if you are to reject the carbon dating of manuscripts then you must reject the carbon dating of everything. If so then don’t bother going to elections this year because if Jesus was born in 1152AD then Charlemagne has just formed the Holy Roman Empire, which I can tell you that it will neither be Roman, Holy or an Empire. However that doesn’t matter because I won’t be born for another 1100 odd years

          • Patrick on February 23, 2012 at 7:03 pm

            I have given up on that 🙂 time is illusion after all, surely we will agree there yes?

            I don’t vote…why would I consent to this madness? I am roughly half way through reasserting our original status under the Constitution for the United States of America (We the People). First thing you need to do is cancel your voter contract, then all the rest.

            I wont bore you with law, but suffice it to say, we have a choice after all since involuntary servitude was outlawed but voluntary servitude isn’t! And to think we wanted ALL of this stuff…sweet mercy!

      • MattB on February 22, 2012 at 11:48 pm

        Correction to the above post: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

      • Joseph P. Farrell on February 23, 2012 at 3:45 pm

        Yes that’s my intention Matt…thanks for pointing it out

      • Joseph P. Farrell on February 23, 2012 at 1:20 pm

        *sigh sob weep wail* <---- enormous frustration at American theological-historical nitwittery. I don't even know where or how to begin with this nonsense...Sarbellians? First off, it's SABELLIANS. Secondly, Nestorius wasn't even ALIVE at the time of Nicea, to formulate the doctrine Constantine supposedly excluded... Total GARBAGE spirit splice...TOTAL! It's so bad if this were handed to me back when I was a professor, it would've warranted a big red letter "F" with a redo, and no possibility of anything better than a "C" for the course....

        • legioXIV on February 23, 2012 at 3:15 pm

          G’day Dr Farrell,
          I have read on a couple of occasions a trilogy of books on the Byzantine Empire by Lord John Julius Norwich. I don’t know if you are aware of them but I found them to be very good if not the best history of said empire going round. In it, of course, is much discussion of Christianity as it formed a fundamental component of the empire.
          So after reading the above link I have a couple of things I would like to clear up, apart from you have written above.

          The first is: “Emperor Constantine of Rome had supposedly experienced a conversion to Christianity in 323 A.D. (he refused to be baptized, which all Christians are commanded to do, until he was on his death bed many years later).”
          Now my understanding of Lord Norwich’s work is that deathbed conversions were not uncommon and much more frequent than generally believed. My understanding is that the act of baptism cleansed one of ones sins so that one could enter the realm of heaven with a “clean slate” so to speak. Thus many preferred to have their baptisms on their deathbeds for that reason. Is that true?

          The second is the nature of Constantine’s so called conversion to Christianity. From what I remember, Lord Norwich speculated that Constantine was not as christian as most would have you believe, especially in the early years of his reign. He made numerous references in public inscriptions to “the deity”, a rather ambiguous name for a god. Hedging his bets? Using language to keep everyone on side, Christians and Pagans alike? I have also read that Constantine was a follower of Sol Invictus for the majority of his life. Any thoughts on that?

          • Joseph P. Farrell on February 23, 2012 at 3:38 pm

            Oh man I wish I had the time to answer this in detail, but I am simply swamped with work legio. Briefly stated, there is a deep connection, in my opinion, between the sol invictus cult and the spread of Christianity and indeed a connection, in my opinion, between Flavius Constantine’s conversion and that cult. It is true that baptism, which was the early Christian tradition’s understanding of what being “born again” meant, was delayed during these times till near death, though Church authorities counseled against it in some instances (and one even has a reference in St. Augustine of Hippo Regius to the communion of infants, a practice implying the baptism and “confirmation” of infants, which is still practiced in the Eastern Orthodox Church). As for the references in Constantinian inscriptions to “the deity” there is, I strongly suspect, a very hidden agenda going on here, one that one might call “hermetic.” There is much to be done by way of a speculative history in this regard, both for the Christian and pre-Christian eras, and the ground has been amply prepared by various scholars over the years, Frances A. Yates and Garth Fowden, among them. The Nag Hammadi discovery really upset the historical applecart in so many ways that the mind literally boggles. So the questions you’re asking are so deep and multifaceted that it would take a veritable tome, rather similar in length to my Orthodox study of theological history, God, History, and Dialectic and such an undertaking, for obvious reasons, I cannot undertake here. I hope someday to undertake such a comprehensive speculative history, but the ground needs to be prepared still more…

          • legioXIV on February 23, 2012 at 3:46 pm

            Thanks, Dr Farrell, for the reply.
            I had no idea I was opening a veritable “can of worms” with those questions. It looks like I shall have to look a bit deeper myself into this, because the history of the early church is so very important and I believe that it is one of the fundamentals to understanding what happened after and to this very day. So much to study, ancient politics, wars and now christian religion. My head hurts haha.

          • legioXIV on February 23, 2012 at 6:25 pm

            Thanks Dr Farrell,
            I have to say that I have really enjoyed today’s conversations, the most intellectual fun I have had for quite sometime.
            Thanks to all!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Joseph P. Farrell on February 23, 2012 at 6:34 pm

            Thank you, and Daniel, for weighing in against the nonsense and rubbish… sometimes the galloping somersaulting arrogance and stupidity of people amazes me. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry but in the end was just exhausted by it. So again, thanks to all.

          • Daniel Jones on February 23, 2012 at 6:31 pm

            Let me just point out that you are asking some serious questions there!! Keep digging on that one for sure!

          • legioXIV on February 23, 2012 at 6:41 pm

            No worries Daniel, rest assured I will.

          • legioXIV on February 23, 2012 at 9:02 pm

            Dr Farrell,
            I forgot to ask before but how could I access a copy of your God, History, and Dialectic ?
            Your answer about the connections between Sol Invictus, Christianity and Constantine intrigues me. Something I definitely want to look at.

        • spiritsplice on February 24, 2012 at 8:45 am

          Bad reference, I submit. My point wasn’t what you responded to but the unification of the church and the Roman state. This is why Christianity has endured, which was what I was getting at. Hard to make indepth points with refereces on my phone. Sorry for the frustration.

      • Daniel Jones on February 23, 2012 at 6:17 pm

        I was hoping that maybe you would stop and think and perhaps do some reading about the topic before posting, but it appears this was hoping too much. What we are left with is a “google search” of a ‘journalist,’ with no scholarly references primary or secondary. I mean I would’ve at least taken Edward Gibbon’s the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire or Philip Schaff’s Ecclesiastical History of the Councils (even though these are OLD), something to show that you actually understand what you are saying, if not perhaps help with the learning process.

        1) I will offer first the Edict of Milan 313, which is to state that there was no wedding between Christianity and the State, but rather to instantiate a cease fire. In fact, if one was looking for laissez-faire Religion, it was in Constantine’s Edict of Milan which ensured the guarantee that one could worship God or the gods how they saw fit in peace, either Christian or Pagan.

        2) Constantine being a politician was looking primarily for stability for his empire, just as *any* good politician would seek to do. The Council of Nicea is primarily an Alexandrian problem, inasmuch as the issue of the Council’s question grew up out of that See. Constantine invited all bishops of the orthodox catholic church to the council, approximately 1800, with some 300 in attendance along with legates. For not inviting Apollinarians, Eutychians, Nestorians, and Monophysites, those movements didn’t even exist at the time of Nicene Council. Constantine took no part in the voting, signing or deliberations of the Council. None. Zip. He didn’t even impose or enforce the homoousion formula (in fact he seemed to deny it later on). Every single bishop at the council believed in one sense or another that the Son was divine, but where they differed is what that relationship amounted to in relation to the Father. Constantine didn’t have a theological background so he would’ve hardly have known to have actively sought out a microdot jurisdiction like Mani gnosticism. Since the controversy involved the famous ‘Alexandrian’ school of Christology, why would he anyways? The dispute between Alexander of Alexandria and Arius didn’t involve them, but it was a controversy that was driving a wedge between most and major dioceses in the Eastern Church.

        3) There were no deliberations in the minutes or in the canons of the Council that decided on the books of the New Testament canon. This is nothing short of erroneous fiction. The first Council to ever give a list of canon books were regional councils in North Africa, which were hardly normative. This is to say that there was no defined dogmatic canon by an Ecumenical Council until the Council of Florence that made the 27 books of the New Testament normative, and then with Council of Trent which ratified what you see in the current Roman Catholic bible to be inclusive of deutero-canon portions of the Old Testament. The closest thing the Eastern Church has is in the Quintisext at Trullo, 692, and it is not considered an Ecumenical Council.

        For those who’d like to really understand the history and theology at Nicea, here’s a couple of recommendations:

        (1) G.L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought
        (2) Nicene Canons can be found in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. XIV (should be available online)
        (3) Lewis Ayers, The Way to Nicea
        (4) RPC Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God
        (5) and our host: Joseph P. Farrell, God, History, and Dialectic Vol. 1(www.filioque.com)

        • Joseph P. Farrell on February 23, 2012 at 6:25 pm

          And I have to doff my bonnet again, this time to you Daniel… for calling out all the nonsense in that ridiculous post. We could go on and on with all of it, but I thank you for taking the time to write and post this comment. Sometimes I get so overwhelmed with the nonsense, and with work, I just don’t have the energy to respond to rubbish. Thanks!

      • legioXIV on February 23, 2012 at 6:39 pm

        Great post Daniel.
        I have a question for you regarding the Edict of Milan. Was it for what it is purported to be, freedom to worship as you will? Or was it, on Constantines’s part, instituted to placate the Pagan emperor Licinius until Constantine was ready to deal with him?

        • Daniel Jones on February 23, 2012 at 7:16 pm

          I think with the Edict, which both Emperor’s signed to give it institution, it was for the same purposeful end of social stability, regardless of whatever conspiring that went on between them: it advanced both of their purposes.

        • Daniel Jones on February 23, 2012 at 7:27 pm

          The reason I say this is the fact that Constantine’s policy is even more lax than Licinius’s. If he’s simply being a foil, then it would seem odd that Constantine has a more tolerant policy. On that score, I don’t take Constantine to be disingenuous.

        • legioXIV on February 23, 2012 at 8:00 pm

          I would agree with that Daniel, but I also can’t help but think that there was more to it than that. From my reading of this period I recall that Licinius was a staunch Pagan and was very much against the idea of Christianity. I feel that Constantine knew this and also knew that it would be only a matter of time before Licinius went against the precepts of the Edict and started to persecute Christians within his domains. Now whether this happened naturally or whether Constantinian agents acted to make this happen could be argued over but it seems that Licinius did begin to act against the Christians. Thus Constantine was given his casus belli to begin action against co-emperor Licinius.
          What I am saying is that I believe that the Edict had an ulterior motive as well as being what it purported to be, an act for religious freedom, to a certain extent. Namely that ulterior motive was a trap set for Licinius as I believe that Constantine always intended to be the sole ruler of the Roman Empire. One Empire, One Religion, One Emperor if you will. Constantine knew his man, Licinius did not.
          Love to hear your thoughts on that.

          • Daniel Jones on February 24, 2012 at 9:13 am

            I think that’s an entirely a plausible case that Constantine has a double intention with his signing of the Edict. Also consider that it is Licinius that is pushing the Edict in the East where Maximinus rise to relative joint power. Maximinus was extremely unpopular with the Christian communities, so if Lucinius is considered to be anti-christian, it would certainly not be one that he promoted publically and politically, or to the same degree of Maximinus. Lucinius later turned on that, but that does not seem to be his initial intention at the time, nor Constantine’s.

            As far as One Emperor, One Religion, there are certainly problems there too. As you have aptly pointed out so far (‘the deity’), Constantine’s ‘theology’ if we can even say he had one, was a kind of ‘Unknown’ God theology or a ‘God-in-General’ one, if you catch my drift. Hardly representative of either Athanasian ‘Orthodoxy’ or Arian ‘Heterodxy’.

            While he certainly was influenced by Church politics (and not the other way around), he had his own prerogative too. Even as he erected Constantinople and shifted the empire to the East, he promoted the esoteric sol invictus to be a day celebrated by both christians and pagans and wore the diademic symbol of the sun on the day of Constantinople’s dedication.

            And as you said, there’s more than meets the eye here… 😉

          • legioXIV on February 24, 2012 at 1:32 pm

            Thanks Daniel,
            Obviously I need to look into this more. Especially the Christian/Sol Invictus aspect.

  9. SSNaga on February 21, 2012 at 10:17 pm

    He swallowed the Red Pill(s) & began chasing the White Rabbit down The Black Hole. We know how that ended for the poor Neo-phyte, unable to See in The Dark (UnKnown). tsk-tsk. … Thanks for the “recap” on his latest adventures: “The Dragon Battles the Weekend/Weakened Warrior.” Fall of the Logos, In Deed. (Oh, forgot! “HeiL HitLer!” … love those little black spiders… the ‘life’ of the Party!)

    • Robert Barricklow on February 22, 2012 at 9:29 am

      The Queen of Hearts has the power.
      Her pointlessness, is the point.

      • SSNaga on February 22, 2012 at 5:01 pm

        Truth… that Points Home from The Door No Longer There. Virgin to Virgin, with a jaunt down Babylon Boulevard “In Between,” when Red goes Dead. Ah… that Lipstick!

  10. Ramura on February 21, 2012 at 5:12 pm

    Question: I frequently see references to the “fall of man” as if this was self-explanatory and everyone knows what that means. Or the “Fall of Lucifer.” Same thing.

    Just WHAT does this term mean? Fall in consciousness? Fall in dimension/density? Fall from the “heavens” (read other planets or beyond) to our planet and unable to get back off?

    Dr. Farrell, it is possible you have addressed this somewhere in one of your tomes, but I am not even half-way through your books, trying to integrate them (and your website, and your interviews, and your members area) as fast as I can.

    Would you, or someone, please tell me what YOU think this means? I can read it on many levels (Dr. Farrell’s “many levels of meaning” meme).

    Help! And thanks to all who respond.

    • Patrick on February 22, 2012 at 9:41 am

      it is fractal, so apply it so…I’ve come to see this is at least three nested circles…and many levels meme is cuz it simple IS so…

      We are in creators creation which is actually our creation merged together to form said creator. Said another way, you are a photon of the wave. You are the wave, but at the moment, you are choosing to be a photon only to isolate part of your self and experience your self as such.

      Lucifer is the highest ego of this creation, maybe the part of the wave that moves up…the increasing frequency is Lucifer. Then the decreasing could be the lower ego or Satan. At some point in time in the past we were enjoying a heavenly experience, but we’re isolated from the rest of creation because we are actually inside Lucifer’s nested holographic reality isolated from the rest of creation. Now Lucifer broke off like this thinking in the highest ego (doing good/better) that he could create better than creator. We in some multi dimensional capacity know this and are a part of those angels who wanted the experience Lucifer could offer.

      The tricky part is even Lucifer’s creation was hijacked by Satan or Yahweh when Abraham being schooled in the ancient, mystery schools called forth for divine countenance to deliver his people. He made a promise to worship him ever since and the rest is history. I have heard many terms but demiurge or Archons seems like the same energy. At the end of the day simplifying it all down to energies seem to be my key to understand…

      • spiritsplice on February 22, 2012 at 9:51 am

        Any sources for these wild claims?

        • Patrick on February 22, 2012 at 7:46 pm

          Before I make a smart ass comment, let me ask this – do you really need to read something to prove anything to your Self? Go inside… /rant

          If I organized and cataloged all these sources, I wouldnt have time to comment on the good Doc’s website.

          I will say Montalk.net would be the most comprehensive starting point to the totality of it all. But please note, this is just mental masturbation, barely more than that…but monkey mind always seems to find something to obsess over…I claim no deliverance 🙂


          What is the Gnosis series? It is a grand unified conspiracy theory that attempts to explain who we are, why we’re here, where we’re going, and what this reality is fundamentally about. These questions are the focal points of Gnosticism, hence the title of this series.

          The Gnosis articles present an aerial map that puts other seemingly unrelated fields of study into perspective: Alchemy, metaphysics, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Freudian and Jungian psychology, Theosophy and Anthroposophy, Christ and Buddhist teachings, Grail studies, Ark of the Covenant research, Biblical Eschatology, prophecy, 2012 theories, mythology, alienology, fringe physics, and more. It shows a possible logical connection between all of these.

          This meta-model’s defining feature is that, rather than being made up ad hoc, it is well rooted in established sources and classical philosophical traditions. It responds to the question, “What ultimate conclusion can be drawn from all of these sources?”


      • Jedi on February 23, 2012 at 5:49 am

        Study the first four chapters of genesis.

  11. spiritsplice on February 21, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    Joseph, are familiar with Kathy O’Brian and her book Trance-formation of America? She claims to be a rescued victim of one of these networks, implicates several presidents, interesting read.

    • HAL838 on February 22, 2012 at 6:42 am

      O’Brian’s story left out a lot, as I read at the time,
      but seemed to be posessed or obsessed
      with ‘outing’ presidents more than anything else.

      Not that I doubt the probability, but this seemed
      at the time anyway, to be the purpose of her story
      and I wasn’t interested in perverted biographies.

  12. Robert Barricklow on February 21, 2012 at 9:54 am

    There was a documentary on this network reaching into the halls of power. It was to be aired on mainstream tv. It was a blackmail threat that Washington’s power elite succumbed to, and cancelled the show. The investigators were either paid-off, character assassintated, disappeared, or accidently erased from the living.
    The Franklin Cover-up: Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder In Nebraska by Jon W. DeCamp says it all. Even former Central Intelligence Director William Cloby was taken out, when decided to finally take on that dragon. It is extremely deadly.

    Many elitist skeletons & monsters dwell/within its grasp.
    A dragon that truly needs slaying,
    along with its mate, “the corporate media”.

    • SSNaga on February 21, 2012 at 10:51 am

      “The Dragon is one’s best friend and worst enemy. The Dragon is the ruthless realignment of energy that operates without regard for personal wants or needs. … It is the play of Power. … The play of Power is three-fold. First, those who play with Power are played with by Power. Secondly, Power never goes to your strength but aways hits you where you hurt or where you are weakest. Thirdly, Power always gives you just a bit more than you can stand. … Some are tightly wrapped in the coils of the Dragon and cannot move, while others are loosely caressed in the same coils. Nonetheless, you are all encased in those coils of the Dragon.” (“Consolidation of Power,” Mark Gershon aka Avendar Dragon)

      • Robert Barricklow on February 21, 2012 at 1:19 pm

        I like it.

    • HAL838 on February 22, 2012 at 6:47 am

      Another book waiting to be read, although I heard that
      DeCamp just got out of jail after being framed on
      bogus charges to shut him up.

      • Robert Barricklow on February 22, 2012 at 9:17 am

        Unfortunately, justice has become politicized vegas-style: beyond belief.

        • HAL838 on February 22, 2012 at 9:59 am

          Politicized or personalized ?

          • Robert Barricklow on February 22, 2012 at 12:08 pm

            Good point.
            Sometimes they do appear to be indistinguishable.

  13. MLLamb on February 21, 2012 at 9:42 am

    The answer to does such network exist is yes. The answer of how long has it existed? Since the fall of man. Where does it come from? The heart of man. This is why the UN will not charge nor try the Church nor any other organization or country with human trafficking or sexual slavery.

    There is an Italian priest, Norto de Fortunato, who for over 20 years has been working with a group of volunteers and Interpol, tracking child pornography and human trafficking. He once said that he did not know if any of the cases would be pursued or followed through as the trails lead into the upper echelons of every government of the world including the Vatican City/State.

    Some of these did make the news shortly after; a homosexual escort service run out of the vatican involving a ,”gentleman in waiting” , to the pope and seminarians. and 19 persons of interest in a child pornography ring associated with The US pentagon, and of course the Canadian bishop caught with child porn on his lap top.

    As for where is the outrage when it is anyone or organization other than the Roman Catholic Church? …well there are other organizations who have ministers of God, but The Church, is the only one who has men who claim to act in the person of God, ” en personna Christi” (In The Person Of CHRIST). Our hierarchy has truly let us down. Not just by not separating the wolves from the flock. But by actually nurturing and promoting the wolves.

  14. Father Krespi on February 21, 2012 at 9:12 am

    I would argue that the original Roman Catholic Church was not a Yahweh cult at all but was established by Jesus to be the adversary to the Yahweh cultists. I think the Church was built around this defiant precept:

    (John 8:44):
    “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it.”

    Unfortunately, the Yahweh cultists can co-opt anything and turn it into a Yahweh cult. For the Indians, Krishna becomes yahweh. For the Greeks, Herakles becomes yahweh. For the mormons, Jesus becomes yahweh, and so on and so on.

    Based on the abominable, homicidal and demonic behavior of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, we have to assume the yahweh cultists usurped control. And then the crusade to seize Jerusalem seems to be the clincher for me. If that wasn’t twisted homo nephilim zionism in action, I don’t know what is.

    If you are a Christian and you want to stop paying homage to yahweh, then just rip out the old testament and burn it or, if you don’t feel comfortable burning books, no matter how vile they are, because of 20th century homo nephilim propaganda, then I would suggest lining your pet’s cage with it or using it as toilet paper when you go camping.

    • Jay on February 21, 2012 at 9:26 am

      To your mind when was the Catholic Church assembled?

    • Father Krespi on February 21, 2012 at 9:39 am

      I should add, fire rituals and offering non-living things to the fire are how Aryan people propitiate their Gods. This is in stark contrast to our adversaries who propitiate their demon overlord, yahweh, through the abuse, torture, murder and cannibalism of children.

      This is my pre-empitve response to those who will castigate me in some indoctrinated fashion on book burning.

    • spiritsplice on February 21, 2012 at 12:58 pm

      No basis for your idea. Also you forget that Jesus vets the OT and Yahweh as genuine. More likely is that Jesus never existed, that the stories are a combination of midrash and real events concerning many teachers over many years. The earliest Christian documents say nothing of Jesus as being a real person, this is added later. Jesuspuzzle.com has a ton of excellent info.

      2 Chrisianity requires Yahwism. Remove the OT and you have removed the entire foundation (flimsy and misused as it is) for Jesus’ existence and teachings. Your only option would be to cling to books like the Gospel of Thomas and see Jesus as some sort of Guru without a history.

      I would also add that the first Christians worshipped Serapis, not Jesus.

      • legioXIV on February 21, 2012 at 2:05 pm

        G’day Spiritsplice,
        It is more than likely that Jesus did exist, I have come across references to him in classical works such as those written by Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus. Apparently there are other references as well:
        Hope this helps.

        • spiritsplice on February 21, 2012 at 2:18 pm

          I suggest you look a bit deeper. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html

        • legioXIV on February 21, 2012 at 3:40 pm

          Very nice Spiritsplice, I will have to a closer look at that later and check my sources. I will get back to you on that. Thanks very much for the link.

          • MattB on February 22, 2012 at 1:44 am

            Most of these ‘arguments’ are built on suppositions and assumptions, nothing of real interest to see here.

          • spiritsplice on February 22, 2012 at 6:37 am

            Mattb, way to deflect. Using that reasoning we would have to dismiss all of Joseph’s books. I mean, none od us were there after all, right? Your reasoning can equally be turned on itself as well and against your Jesus’ existence.

            “From the apostolic age downwards,in a never interrupted succession,but never so strongly and emphatically as in the most primitive times, was the existence of Christ as a man most strenuously denied.” Rev Robert Taylor, Diegesis

          • legioXIV on February 22, 2012 at 3:02 pm

            I would have to agree with MattB to a certain degree, most of what is there seems to be based on their interpretation of the ancient texts. the matter is not helped by the fact that not many texts have survived from the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD which could shed more light on the matter. To me it is perfectly understandable that there are not many references to Jesus/ Joshua bar Joseph, after all in Roman eyes he was merely another rebel questioning the rule of Rome. The fact that Seutonius and Tacitus have only minor references is explained by the fact that they were writing about the Caesar’s and early christian history was not part of that order, thus they only reference Christ and Christians when it pertains to their area of study.

            I have come across the questions about the references in Flavius Josephus’s work before and here they make a good case about later additions, the passages do not seem to fit with the rest of the work. However the question:
            “How could Josephus claim that Jesus had been the answer to his messianic hopes yet remain an orthodox Jew?”
            This makes no sense to me because the immediate followers of Christ were in fact Jews, christian being a later appellation. The fact was that there were many sects of Judaism at this time, as like with the Christians later, and to follow any one of these did not make one no longer a Jew. As for the term messiah one must cast aside the Christian interpretation of the word and refer to the original which meant “anointed one” or King, and there were many claimants to the throne of the Jews.

            As for “The hyperbolic language is uncharacteristic of the historian”, I would suggest a reading of Plutarch or Herodotus to show that historians of the time on many occasions used such “hyperbolic language”.

            “Nero took advantage of the destruction to build his ‘Golden House’ though no serious scholar believes anymore that he started the fire”. Well that is simply not true, I know of quite a few who believe that Nero started the fire i.e. Garrett G. Fagan, Associate Professor of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies and History.
            Tacitus make references to “imperial agents” interfering with fire fighting efforts and that every time the firefighters managed to get a handle on the fires, new fires would spring up elsewhere. I would also note Subrius Flavus denunciation of Nero shortly before his death, “I hated you, but none of your soldiers was more loyal to you while you deserved our affection.I started to hate you when you became the murderer of your mother and wife, and a charioteer, actor and arsonist”.
            I would note that Prof Fagan even entertains the idea that the Christians indeed started the fire due to significance of dates and the apocalyptic nature of early Christianity.

            All in all I would have to say that Joshua bar Joseph existed and there is a reason why this existence is questioned more than other “founders” of religions such as the Prophet Muhammed or Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha. That reason is that Jesus/Joshua did not found Christianity, this was done by his followers later. Hence the lack of references to him in the 1st century AD and early 2nd. We have the what was remembered about the man by his followers after his life had ended.
            By that same token I have only what I have been told to me about the existence of my Great Grandfather, having died long before my birth. He does not even rate a mention in any history book today but that does not mean that he did not exist.

            As we have only a very small portion of the works that existed at that time it is hard to say for sure. The loss of the Imperial Roman archives is a great loss as I have come across references to reports written by Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea. I am sure that they would shed more light on this matter.

          • spiritsplice on February 23, 2012 at 7:05 am

            Your point on Josephus is illogical. How could Josephus think Jesus might have been the messiah when he was killed and did not restore the 12 tribes as the prophets claimed he would? The OT also says nothing about ressurection of Jesus, son of god, virgins or any other such nonsense that is standard Christian fair and Josephus would have been well versed enough to know these claims were bogus based on the references stated. Jesus own story disqualifies him from Messiahship so many times it’s ridiculous.

            Also, you cannot appeal to texts that might have existed and did not survive. We have what we have and based on that evidence, the case for a historical Jesus is about as flimsy as Bill Clinton’s marraige vows. Much of the attacking is Hegelian Dialectic to create strife, not a sincere challenging of the religion.

          • legioXIV on February 23, 2012 at 2:26 pm

            “The OT also says nothing about ressurection of Jesus, son of god, virgins or any other such nonsense that is standard Christian fair”

            How could the old testament contain any reference to any such Christian ideas when the last books of said testament were compiled in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC? How could they mention Jesus when when the old testament found final form at least 100 YEARS before he was even BORN? Unless there is a book of Nostradamus hidden somewhere in there then it simply cannot.

            “Also, you cannot appeal to texts that might have existed and did not survive”

            Can you not? Both Tertullian(c. 160 – c. 225 AD) and Justin Matyr(103–165AD) mention the Acts of Pilate, a report written by Praefectus Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar regarding his governance of Judea which included references to Christ and the crucifixion. Though we don’t have these now both of these writers saw this report and testify to its existence. So therefore a case can be made for its existence.

            Both Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus and Publius Cornelius Tacitus both mention Christ and Christians in their histories of the Caesars. Considering that the purpose of their work was to chronicle the rule of emperors and not to make a case for the existence of Christ these little passages regarding said Christians can be taken at face value.

            Then you have the Talmud which references the existence of Christ. The Talmud,finding final composition in the 2nd Century AD, was written before the new testament.

            Thus taking Tacitus, Suetonius, Tertullian, Justin Matyr and the Talmud together there is confirmation that there was indeed a Jesus in the 1st century AD and that his followers did worship him after his death.

          • Joseph P. Farrell on February 23, 2012 at 3:27 pm

            Nicely done legio!!! Indeed…Bravo!

          • Jedi on February 23, 2012 at 3:52 pm

            There actually is virgin birth in the OT…..have a look into genesis….it is right there in plain view.

            The belief period is over, it is knowing time.

            Great post on JC btw.

          • legioXIV on February 23, 2012 at 3:56 pm

            Of course how could I forget?
            Adam and Eve weren’t exactly a conventional conception and birth now were they?
            Thanks for the comment.

          • Jedi on February 23, 2012 at 4:03 pm

            …even before that….read it carefully and dont let your eyes deceive you.

            If you get to chapter 2 you’ve gone too far.

          • legioXIV on February 23, 2012 at 4:17 pm

            Dear Jedi,
            Are you referring to the creation of first the sea creatures and then the land creatures to be followed by mankind?

            “20 And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. ”

            Or are you referring to the creation of vegetation if you take pollination to be conception and seeds sprouting to be birth?

          • legioXIV on February 23, 2012 at 4:20 pm

            Or is it the existence of god himself? A life form that seems to have always existed and had no record of birth.

          • Jedi on February 23, 2012 at 4:26 pm

            The record of god is truthful in the bible…and the SPIRIT OF GOD MOVED OVER THE WATERS….light.

            please read genesis 1 again, slowly. God is waiting to show you something quite remarkable.

          • legioXIV on February 23, 2012 at 4:56 pm

            Dear Jedi,
            I have read and re-read until I am blue in the face haha. I can’t see what you are referring too. Other than the birth of the sun and earth, i.e. the solar system, I just can’t see anything else. Please help.

          • Jedi on February 23, 2012 at 5:12 pm

            pm on you tube, my channel is imeanlive, too many masters of the control of tastes lamas lurking here.

          • legioXIV on February 23, 2012 at 5:21 pm

            Thanks Jedi.

          • Jedi on February 23, 2012 at 5:22 pm

            ah you got it….nice one.

          • Jedi on February 23, 2012 at 5:56 pm

            sorry didnt mean to be arrogant…just a little ignorant little dolphin over here that is in awe.

          • spiritsplice on February 24, 2012 at 9:09 am

            Legio, my primary source is Doherty not jesusneverexisted.com

            2 you can’t appeal to lost texts because we don’t know what those texts say.

            3 You misunderstand my point about Christian idea and the OT. It is the Christian view that things such as the Resurrection ™, the virgin birth, etc are specifically spoken of in the OT. I was simply pointing out that this is not the case and that those references have been misused by the NT writers and those who believe them.

            4 Suetonius is an incredible source to reference. To quote Doherty, “The historian Suetonius’ reference (around 120) to “Chrestus” as someone,or some idea,that has produced agitation among Jews in Rome,is so flimsy and uncertain,no secure meaning can be drawn from it,much less a connection to Christianity and an historical Jesus.”

          • legioXIV on February 24, 2012 at 1:59 pm

            1. I never insisted that jesusneverexisted.com was your primary source nor have I even mentioned this site. Not once. I suggest you re-read my posts more carefully.

            2. Both Tertullian and Justin Matyr have referenced the Acts of Pilate and what is in them. They both testify that Jesus is mentioned in them. That is enough to say that the Acts existed and they mentioned Jesus. That the Acts are an official report from a governor to a reigning emperor is makes them even more credible. They can be included as evidence.

            3.This has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of Jesus the man. Christian views and where they may or may not have come from is completely irrevellant to the question of whether the man existed or not.
            “More likely is that Jesus never existed, that the stories are a combination of midrash and real events concerning many teachers over many years.”
            This was the original statement that I and others wished to clarify and thus it formed the basis of the main question here. The question was not whether we all believed in the virgin birth, the resurrection or any other such thing. It was simply did he exist or did he not? Changing the question in the middle of the conversation to include aforementioned “Christian ideas” in my view is just a desperate attempt to grasp at anything to back up a faltering argument.

            4. What about Tertullian, Justin Matyr, Tacitus and the Talmud? That’s just one man’s view and I would point out that Tacitus mentions the very same thing in much the same context, Christians in the reign of Nero. Two mentions from two different sources about the same event. Compelling.

            5. Here’s a challenge for you. I and others here have mentioned many instances where various and widely ranged sources have mentioned the existence of Jesus in the early years of Christianity. I wonder if you could find from the same period an author who flatly says that Jesus never existed. I bet you could not find one in the first 1000 years of Christianity.

      • Daniel Jones on February 21, 2012 at 4:14 pm

        I would proceed very carefully here. The Jesus you describe would be the ‘canonical’ one that vetted the OT and to himself. There is also gnosticism and there are various forms of this. Ptolemey’s account would be very much different from Valentinan and Marcion, etc. I would certainly entertain the idea that Josephus created orthodoxy, in fact there is an academic scholar that I have recently found that argues this point (thanks JPF). But in both gnosticism and the canonical texts, there are other references in it. References to texts much much older than the 1st – 4th AD, that help to reorient the story.

        Furthermore, there were many dying and rising god myths going around in the first century. What would be peculiar about this myth to make it “stick” as it were? While not conclusive in itself, there would need to be a kind of personage behind the myth to make this one stick in my opinion.

        • spiritsplice on February 21, 2012 at 9:58 pm

          Nonsense, it was a quirk of fate and a political move by Constantine. The endurance of a dumb idea says nothing of it’s reality. Look at previous myths that reigned for long periods of time, this is just the most recent one. This one (of the three) has been found to be much more useful than previous versions, so they kept it.

          Once you get a few generations from the supposed event, no one alive would have any knowledge of Jesus anymore than they would of any other cult that was being promoted. Once you get away from the immediate time frame, your longevity argument becomes weightless.

          • Daniel Jones on February 22, 2012 at 8:30 am

            Thanks. Having an academic background in theology and philosophy, I understand the literature that is out there on the topic. On that score, I’m not really sure you understand what exactly I’d be arguing for in an historical Jesus if it can be said one existed.

            Second, the appeal to Constantine is a weak one and is equivalent for what passes for popularized accounts that we see in Dan Brown and elsewhere. These are not helpful for the serious searcher. There is already an initial struggle for an understanding of Jesus in the 2nd Century AD, 200 years before Constantine, with the Apologists and the Anti-Gnostic literature in Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyon. The website you linked to (which I knew from JPF via Dr. De Hart a long time ago), while I agree with it to a certain extent, it leaves out other pertinent details, details that would be crucial to help paint a different picture of who this figure might be; details not considered would run the risk of falsifying much of one’s conclusions. My appeal to you here is simply one of conscious prudence. Nobody has it figured out, nor has someone given a comprehensive approach to all the data. Mostly what we have in the literature, broadly one way or the other, is tendentious for the adherence of one school vis. another.

          • spiritsplice on February 22, 2012 at 9:48 am

            Daniel, I sense some sort of “wrestling with a profound question” type of tone in your words. In my view this is mental masturbation akin to discovering the favorite food of Mozart. Since we can factually say that Jesus was not the “son of god” and did not fulfill the misused propecies attributed in the NT, and the NT is not what it purports to be, it really doesn’t matter (i.e. no salvation or other judgment nonsense to worry about).

            Dismissing Constantine’s phony conversion as the start of big Christianity is offbase. The political use is more explanatory than anything. The Church assimilated surrounding belief systems under the guise and veneer of Christendom. A few people “struggling to understand” Jesus is not relevant to the longevity issue.

            Details, details, details…like what? Doherty addresses all of the relevant source material of the time. Ehat more do you want…other than to believe?

          • Jedi on February 23, 2012 at 5:42 pm

            actually he was the son of man, nice try though with the god inference. Try reading luke 20 and see if you can figure out his purpose…..he wasnt here too free the animals…. he was here too save the animals….forgive them father…they know not what they do….animal house…ehh but they nailed him to the cross anyways, and freed the barbarian murderer….so much for rule by intelligent beautiful people.
            They hated us because we are not of this world……..

      • Father Krespi on February 21, 2012 at 8:35 pm

        A man named Jesus, or Serapis, or some combination of teachers comes, he/they doesn’t look like a lovely Woodstock flower child, but instead actually looks more like Woody Allen. He/they warn us about this devil worshipping, blood drinking cult in our midst. To prove how evil this cult is, he/they preaches unmitigated pacifism and predicts the devil worshippers will torture and kill him/them anyway because his message is such an affrontery to them. We are told by people who knew the pacifist that he was indeed tortured and killed by the devil worshippers with the help of the Romans.

        Maybe this never actually happened but the alleged killers and blood drinkers brag for the next 2000 years in their unholy book that the alleged victim now languishes for all eternity being boiled in a vat of hot rabbi excrement in the nether world. Therefore, they think he existed and are clearly declaring their triumph over him by mocking his current pathetic state. Well, if the people this holy man came to warn us about says he existed, than I’m convinced.

        Years later a devil worshipper named Saul changes his name to Paul and co-opts the burgeoning religious movement built around this alleged murdered pacifist and turns it into a force to undermine Rome. It becomes a festering sore which nearly destroys the empire. Eventually, a wise emperor named Constantine, now residing in Constantinople, co-opts from the co-opters the pacifist religious movement turned divisive political weapon and turns it into an organized religion which will subdue the agitated populous while surreptitiously enshrining the Aryan Gods and Goddess of old. Mithra, the son of Indra, born on the winter solstice as the Son of the Sun becomes Jesus. The Divine Mother and creatrix of the Universe becomes Mary. All the ancient ceremonial rites are preserved including the Mass and the Solar religion lives on, even in the darkest depths of the Kali Yuga as the lords of this wretched age lashed out at humanity with such vehemence.

        Hail Lord Indra! Hail our Protector!

        • Jedi on February 26, 2012 at 11:01 pm

          Ever wonder about Elvis looking like the statue of liberty?

      • Patrick on February 22, 2012 at 7:50 pm

  15. Eddie88 on February 21, 2012 at 9:10 am

    Please don’t identify this problem with “churches” as opposed to other religious entities. Although it is now closed to general viewers, “the Awareness Center” maintains a website with a huge catalog of child abuse committed by rabbis, cantors, and others in a position of trust in the Jewish community. The Jewish community has done a superb job of closing off any public inquiry into this scandal, partly through the insistence that they will monitor themselves and partly through the usual accusation of antisemitism if the question is raised.

    • HPrice on February 21, 2012 at 12:20 pm

      I agree wholeheartedly, Eddie88. There is so little talk about abuses within Judaism you would think that they are without sin. In fact, if they were so pious why isn’t everyone joining their ranks lol. Around the time that the Catholic abuses came out, there were a number of reports (and there still are if you look for them) accounts of Rabbis abusing the people in their community. They also have been caught smuggling drugs and all sorts of nefarious things. The only reason we don’t hear about it is that the “corporate media”, as some puts it later, don’t report on it. And remember, the “corporate media” is overwhelmingly owned by Jewish people. I originally thought it was just another one of those “anti-semitic canards”, the Jewish people talk about. Unfortunately thats just not the case if you research it yourself.

      If more people did the hard work and researched things for themselves, maybe the bad guys wouldn’t get away with what they do so often. Its only because too many people are lazy and selfish that the bad guys do get away with so much.

  16. Agincajun on February 21, 2012 at 7:12 am

    It’s not new. Research Lester Roloff and Mel Sembler.

  17. romanmel on February 21, 2012 at 7:03 am

    As a former Business Administrator of a large evangelical church, I found that the “mind games” played on the sheep to “keep them in the fold” was as distructive as any sexual abuse. I witnessed a cavalier attitude that bordered on criminal regarding the proper handling of spititual needs and instructions of congregations.

    To “stretch the truth” to get the sheep to do what is perceived as a good outcome is as evil a practice as sexual abuse and perhaps even more distructive in the long term. Deception should have no home in a church community.

  18. Christian de Coninck Lucas on February 21, 2012 at 6:36 am

    Pretty sure it’s organized…

  19. HAL838 on February 21, 2012 at 6:09 am

    I have sometimes posited the question,
    “Would you rather be the only sane person living in an insane world,
    or the only insane person in a sane world?”

    It’s a brief question meant for thought, but I started off getting the wrong answer,
    too promptly, I think.

    So I modified the question with an admonishment,
    “Think before you answer.”
    It seems that makes the difference to tweek out the right answer.

    I’ll ad here a further ‘hint.’

    You live in an insane world. How do you like it?

    Of course, as this is a thought question and no single person
    is one or the other with all else its opposite, it does fit for
    that purpose.

    • SSNaga on February 21, 2012 at 7:10 am

      The practice of sobriety (sanity) is a much-lost Art on this living planet, which propagates a semi-conscious life from itself, reflecting the madness of its Indwelling (4-Fold) Soul. Add to this the “Inverted” Reflection-Projection of the Spark in “matter,” & the understanding of “infernality” of the nature of humanity becomes not just clearer, but “natural.”

      • HAL838 on February 21, 2012 at 9:33 am

        Keep ‘practicing.’

Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events